#killswitch - it's George Orwell .AND. Aldous Huxley (not .OR.)

[IainB]

@Renegade opened a discussion thread back in 2010-06-27:

Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor...
...While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet...
...Indeed, China uses similar rhetoric about the need to maintain “security” and combating cyber warfare by regulating the web, when in reality their entire program is focused around silencing anyone who criticizes the state.

Ahem... Do the words
[Rude expletive removed]
have any meaning?
Sneaky, and dangerous.
Why is every year 1984 lately?

-Renegade (June 27, 2010, 03:14 PM)

I didn't really pay it much mind at the time, thinking that you could probably "read too much" into things like this, if you were skeptical of Big Government motivation.
But a response from @mrainey asked the question:

Why does every political event or medical event, or even current event, spawn a dozen different conspiracy theories?
...

-mrainey (June 27, 2010, 03:35 PM)

And an interesting discussion ensued.
Since then, there have been numerous related issues raised and discussed in DCF, including, for example (and in no particular order):

• Reddit Leaving GoDaddy because of SOPA Support
• As a counter-point to the SOPA/PIPA demonstration
• SOPA: Alt view - You need to be Shakespeare or Picasso to Avoid Content Scraping
• SOPA Is Irrelevant - They'll do it anyways...
• Canadian SOPA-clone looming!
• PrECISE - It's the New SOPA/PIPA/ACTA
• SOPA Shelved - ACTA is Worse
• DC going offline to protest SOPA on Jan 18
• SOPA Cabana
• Sorry, This Post Has Been Censored
• "Save the internet"

- and quite a lot more besides that.

So the whole subject of the "freedom of the Internet" (or whatever it could be called) would seem to be of concern to several DCF members, to the extent that it seems to be necessarily occupying our collective cognitive surplus, and the site was blacked out in the SOPA protest.

And now this month has seen the moving of the SECURE IT Act (cybersecurity bill) through the US Senate.
So it isn't going to stop. And there are all sorts of justifications (alleged "good reasons") for this, from lobbyists and other proponents of proposed Internet regulation and legislation. It looks like a steady, remorseless creep across the domain of Internet freedom will be the order of the day.
So what did the SOPA protest blackout achieve? Maybe it slowed it's more rapid progress down to a creep in the first place?
Is there a conspiracy? Arguably, yes, there could seem to be.
But, being skeptical, I don't think that would necessarily be correct.

I was gathering some references to George Orwell, and I chanced across this graphic, in a website #killswitch the film. The graphic draws a contrast between Orwell's 1984 vs. Huxley's Brave New World in the context of Internet freedom.
(Large image so as you can read what's written on it.)


Reading it, I realised that all of what each of the authors had predicted as per this diagram apparently already had taken place and/or was taking place. That is, not one versus the other at all.
If this was true, then was it evidence of a conspiracy?
Again, arguably, yes, there could seem to be.
But again, being skeptical, I don't think that would necessarily be correct.

It seems to me that there is a melding of Orwell/Huxley ("Huxwellianism"?) religio-political ideology. Whilst it might be possible to get everybody arranged to collaborate on a concerted attack on and breach of the Constitution and its Amendments, the simpler truth might be that that could be far too difficult a thing to achieve.
It might be much more likely that times and events are such that several disparate interests have arisen which have different objectives but a coincidentally common vector.

Or, I suppose, it could still be a conspiracy in fact, but dressed up to make it look like it wasn't a conspiracy!            

Either way, my suspicion is that it's beginning to look like Internet freedom is going to be stopped/suppressed, whether we like it or not - as @Renegade suggests in one of the above links. And there's not much we will be able to do about it except protest as it is chopped up limb-by-limb in exemplary fashion in front of us.

As @Renegade put it:

...It's not a conspiracy when it's right out in the open for everyone to see...

-Renegade (June 27, 2010, 04:29 PM)

FidoNet/SkyNet begin to look like more attractive approaches as each day dawns.

[Renegade]

A few things in that infographic irk me a bit...

Turkey? Iran? Seriously?

People need to STFU about "North Korea" and look at what is happening AT HOME!

The surveillance state in North Korea? Is this a joke? It's a bad joke... The real surveillance states are the US and the UK, and their doting bunch of lackey followers, like the sheeple north of the US.

How can anyone possible look to "the west" as any sort of "bastion of freedom" when the US Constitution has been systematically eviscerated over the last 10 years or so, and the lackeys are following suit to one degree or another.

Heck, you don't even have the right to free speech in Australia. Never have.

We need to get our own problems sorted first. And no, neither Syria nor Iran are problems. Killing Syrians and Iranians will NOT bring "freedom and democracy" to anywhere.

The problems are the criminals that have hijacked the system. When they are brought to justice, either in handcuffs or in coffins, THEN things can be put right.

The symptoms are all out in the open. There's nothing controversial there. The ONLY thing that is remotely controversial is that the systemic rape of freedom and liberty is intentional and perpetrated by a sick group through a brilliant system of compartmentalization that makes it all too easy to dismiss...


@IainB - Nice round-up of some of the relevant threads!


Regarding skepticism, I would certainly count myself a skeptic. That's where my formal education is. However, there is a "jump point" where you eventually have to stop doubting because it's no longer productive. This is going to vary from individual to individual, but that's neither here nor there.

It's all about connecting the dots. Now, if we simply want to doubt, then any drawing can be dismissed as merely a collection of dots, and that the picture isn't there - only the dots are.

So the question really is, "How densely packed do the dots need to be before you hit your 'jump point'?"

In the last couple years we've seen a massive acceleration of attacks on freedom and liberty. The insanity has been taken to entirely new levels.

Each day we have new reports of things that simply defy imagination.

Here's one... And this is just being dismissed as "oh, that's ok. That's normal. That's just business as usual..."

Ready???


Fair Warning -- turn back now if you have a weak stomach...




Seriously... Stop reading if you are in any way squeamish.


I'm not going to stick this in a spoiler...


You've been warned...



Pepsi uses aborted human fetal tissue in their flavouring. Look it up! (I'm not kidding.)



And that's "normal"? This is the kind of thing that the world has come to?

Cannibalism is "normal"? Eating babies is OK?


The sheeple have been so utterly desensitized that anything goes now. There is no level of insanity that is off-limits.

We don't think you need freedom of association, so, we're taking that away now.
Oh, ok.

And, your rights to keep your kids, well, we don't really think that's necessary any more...
Oh, ok.

Dom Portwood: Hi, Peter. What's happening? We need to talk about your TPS reports.
Peter Gibbons: Yeah. The coversheet. I know, I know. Uh, Bill talked to me about it.
Dom Portwood: Yeah. Did you get that memo?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah. I got the memo. And I understand the policy. And the problem is just that I forgot the one time. And I've already taken care of it so it's not even really a problem anymore.
Dom Portwood: Ah! Yeah. It's just we're putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports before they go out now. So if you could go ahead and try to remember to do that from now on, that'd be great. All right!

Freedom of speech is the first casualty. The first in a long line...

We either speak up now, or we graciously accept the gags forced into our mouths later. Though somehow I'm inclined to think that they'll actually be those gag-balls that you see with plastic gimp outfits in S&M stores and... uh... Not that I would know what's in S&M stores... Movies! Yeah! I saw it in Pulp Fiction!


But seriously - speak up now, or be shut up later. We have 2 options there. I'll go with the first. And if I'm wrong, hey, it's a lot better than being right. Better safe than sorry.

[mwb1100]

Pepsi uses aborted human fetal tissue in their flavouring. Look it up! (I'm not kidding.)

And that's "normal"? This is the kind of thing that the world has come to?

Cannibalism is "normal"? Eating babies is OK?

-Renegade (March 25, 2012, 11:52 PM)

Pepsi does not do this. 

What they, or Senomyx, are doing is using the cells in research for flavorings (http://www.change.or...-aborted-fetus-cells).

These cells are apparently widely used in biotechnology research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEK_cell

Note: I'm not saying that the research is just fine and dandy - I'm not saying anything one way or the other here about my opinion on the matter.  I'm just saying that there's a factual difference between using the cells in research and development and actually using the cells in the product.

[Renegade]

Pepsi uses aborted human fetal tissue in their flavouring. Look it up! (I'm not kidding.)

And that's "normal"? This is the kind of thing that the world has come to?

Cannibalism is "normal"? Eating babies is OK?

-Renegade (March 25, 2012, 11:52 PM)

Pepsi does not do this. 

What they, or Senomyx, are doing is using the cells in research for flavorings (http://www.change.or...-aborted-fetus-cells).

These cells are apparently widely used in biotechnology research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEK_cell

Note: I'm not saying that the research is just fine and dandy - I'm not saying anything one way or the other here about my opinion on the matter.  I'm just saying that there's a factual difference between using the cells in research and development and actually using the cells in the product.

-mwb1100 (March 26, 2012, 01:55 AM)

Splitting hairs.

Murder for profit either way. It's trafficking in human body parts. Baby human body parts.

No matter how you cut it, these sick, twisted <insert frothing string of obscenities here /> are simply beyond any kind of forgiveness or redemption.

[IainB]

Turkey? Iran? Seriously?
People need to STFU about "North Korea" and look at what is happening AT HOME!
The surveillance state in North Korea? Is this a joke? It's a bad joke... The real surveillance states are the US and the UK, and their doting bunch of lackey followers, like the sheeple north of the US.
How can anyone possible look to "the west" as any sort of "bastion of freedom" when the US Constitution has been systematically eviscerated over the last 10 years or so, and the lackeys are following suit to one degree or another.
Heck, you don't even have the right to free speech in Australia. Never have.
We need to get our own problems sorted first. And no, neither Syria nor Iran are problems. Killing Syrians and Iranians will NOT bring "freedom and democracy" to anywhere.

-Renegade (March 25, 2012, 11:52 PM)

The reason I attached that image was that it takes into account that it ("Huxwellianism") seems to be happening all over the globe - if we hadn't already noticed, or needed reminding. I saw a version of the image with Spanish writing on it in place of the English, and for all I know the image has been produced in other languages too.

As for the Western societies - i.e., generally including US, Canada, Europe, and Australasia - again, we already know that it's happening in those societies. That's presumably why there was so much discussion on the subject of "Internet freedom" in the DCF, and why the DCF blacked out for the SOPA protest. You can see that from the concerns expressed by DCF members in the several discussion threads that I listed (and it's not an all-inclusive list either).

I don't see how this is a thing that can be easily fought though. You probably can't really isolate the "culprits" and kill them for treason or put them in jail without discriminating against them and withdrawing their rights in law. They're all over the place. It's like a systemic cancer. If you want to kill it with (say) radiation therapy, then you might end up having to risk killing yourself (the host) as well.

[Renegade]

The reason I attached that image was that it takes into account that it ("Huxwellianism") seems to be happening all over the globe - if we hadn't already noticed, or needed reminding. I saw a version of the image with Spanish writing on it in place of the English, and for all I know the image has been produced in other languages too.

-IainB (March 26, 2012, 05:31 AM)

I know. They have the right idea, but man... I just get sick of the hypocrisy.

Let's fix things at home, then worry about other places. You can't save someone from drowning when you have water in your own lungs.

I don't see how this is a thing that can be easily fought though. You probably can't really isolate the "culprits" and kill them for treason or put them in jail without discriminating against them and withdrawing their rights in law. They're all over the place. It's like a systemic cancer. If you want to kill it with (say) radiation therapy, then you might end up having to risk killing yourself (the host) as well.

-IainB (March 26, 2012, 05:31 AM)

Well, I think you could start throwing people in prison for crimes against humanity or treason. But that's a nasty topic that's better avoided here. It's just too messy.

The most important thing is for people to realize what is going on.

Once the % of the population that is aware of this hits critical mass (about 5% or so - after that it spreads like wildfire), they'll lose. No government can maintain power without the tacit consent of the people, at a minimum. Once people speak up, they lose. Because they have to follow the people.

[40hz]

@40hz[/b] opened a discussion thread back in 2010-06-27:

-IainB (March 25, 2012, 09:37 PM)

Actually I think it was Renegade that opened that topic. Not me. (I just had a lot to say about it as I sometimes do on certain topics.

--------------

Umm...
 

Cannibalism is "normal"? Eating babies is OK?

Splitting hairs.

Murder for profit either way. It's trafficking in human body parts. Baby human body parts.

No matter how you cut it, these sick, twisted <insert frothing string of obscenities here /> are simply beyond any kind of forgiveness or redemption.

Ok guys, I think maybe we really need to tone down the rhetoric just a bit here. N'cest pas?

[IainB]

Heck, you don't even have the right to free speech in Australia. Never have.

-Renegade (March 25, 2012, 11:52 PM)

Well, nevertheless, they have come a long way from being just a penal colony of the UK to being a seriously major economic power in the southern hemisphere. They do seem to be getting very involved in regulation/censorship of Internet freedoms though, apparently closely followed by the Kiwis.
For example, and quite coincidentally, I read this today, about Ozzie police war-driving to check on your wifi security:
Aussie Police Declare War on Unprotected Wi-Fi Networks

I guess it's a useful surveillance and remediation action if they have established that criminals are freeloading off of your open/insecure wifi access point and committing felonies by that avenue, but I have not read anything to the effect that there is evidence that this is indeed becoming something that needs policing.
So it might seem that it could just be unnecessary interference in people's private affairs.
I mean, leaving your wifi insecure (without password access) is a bit like leaving the front door to your home unlocked and open for intruders to enter, and the police don't go around checking that you have locked and secured your front door, so why check whether you have secured your wifi access?

I'd suppose that it might be to ensure that the only person using your IP address is you or your family, and that way they can remove a potential escape loophole for pedophile image downloads (your private email and IP address are already being monitored for this) or the 3 strikes and out or whatever RIAA downloading statute/conditions have recently been imposed on Australian citizens.

Either way, you can probably be fairly sure that there will be a permanent log kept of any action that police take to warn a citizen that their wifi is insecure, and that it could be linked - if necessary - to said citizen's phone number (police need and already have caller ID permission and access to the landline phone numbers of all citizens, even the numbers that are unlisted in the White Pages). It's all about demographics.

At the moment, I think it is not illegal in Australia to have an insecure wifi access point, but a cynic might say "Give it time".

[IainB]

Actually I think it was Renegade that opened that topic. Not me. (I just had a lot to say about it as I sometimes do on certain topics.

-40hz (March 26, 2012, 03:57 PM)

Oops. I didn't realise I had made that mistake. Thanks. Corrected now. Yes, you and I have tended to contribute quite a bit to discussion on this topic. I find it fascinating and want to better understand the patterns (typical Asperger Syndrome). It doesn't seem to all fit together "nicely" at the moment. Maybe missing pieces, or needs re-arranging.

Ok guys, I think maybe we really need to tone down the rhetoric just a bit here. N'cest pas?

-40hz (March 26, 2012, 03:57 PM)

What's with the plural ("guys")? It was just @Renegade, not I.
Anyway I categorically do not have any problem with @Renegade blowing off steam about scientific/commercial use of embryonic material from aborted foetuses. And it might not necessarily be correct to say that he was using rhetoric, either.

By the way, I think "n'est pas?" might be the correct shortened form for "n'est que c'est pas?", but I never was too hot on German.

[Renegade]

Ok guys, I think maybe we really need to tone down the rhetoric just a bit here. N'cest pas?

-40hz (March 26, 2012, 03:57 PM)

Will... try... summoning... inner-super-powers-of-not-ranting-about-insanity...

For example, and quite coincidentally, I read this today, about Ozzie police war-driving to check on your wifi security:
Aussie Police Declare War on Unprotected Wi-Fi Networks

-IainB (March 26, 2012, 05:19 PM)

Criminals might break in, so we'll break in first! Nice logic.

Ok guys, I think maybe we really need to tone down the rhetoric just a bit here. N'cest pas?

-40hz (March 26, 2012, 03:57 PM)

What's with the plural ("guys")? It was just @Renegade, not I.
Anyway I categorically do not have any problem with @Renegade blowing off steam about scientific/commercial use of embryonic material from aborted foetuses. And it might not necessarily be correct to say that he was using rhetoric, either.

-IainB (March 26, 2012, 09:05 PM)

GRRR~! ROAR~!

Yes. Not "guys". Just me. I'm perfectly capable of descending into a frothing mass of obscenity all by my lonesome~!

[IainB]

No government can maintain power without the tacit consent of the people, at a minimum. Once people speak up, they lose. Because they have to follow the people.

-Renegade (March 26, 2012, 06:03 AM)

I'm not sure that history would necessarily always be able to support that statement.

So, what might be the alternatives?

FidoNet/SkyNet begin to look like more attractive approaches as each day dawns.

-IainB (March 25, 2012, 09:37 PM)

I have no idea whether that is realistic - i.e., use some alternative network approach (existing or imagined).

[Renegade]

No government can maintain power without the tacit consent of the people, at a minimum. Once people speak up, they lose. Because they have to follow the people.

-Renegade (March 26, 2012, 06:03 AM)

I'm not sure that history would necessarily always be able to support that statement.

-IainB (March 26, 2012, 09:50 PM)

Imagine 1,000 plantation owners trying to keep control of 100,000 slaves that have all decided that they're not gonna take it anymore!

Sure, there will be casualties, but at 100:1, I know where I'd place my bets.

Still, the time for insurrection isn't when you arrive at the camps - it's before when you find out that you're being loaded up and "relocated".

The US got its ass handed to it in Viet Nam by a bunch of farmers with AK-47s.

It got its ass handed to it again by a bunch of farmers and goat herders making IEDs in Afghanistan.

It also got its ass handed to it yet again by the same crowd in Iraq.

All the while in each of those situations, there were collaborators. And they still lost.

There's a pattern here. When you have a population that simply won't put up with tyranny, the tyrants lose. Sure, there are casualties. Heavy casualties. But in the end, the people win.

The base of all power comes from the people. Without them, there is no power. It is only by people surrendering their power to the state that the state gains power.

That's how the Magna Carta was forced on the monarchy. The lords got sick of the monarchy's BS and wouldn't take it anymore. The monarchy was forced to comply.

Most people miss this simple truth, that the true source of power comes from the people.

However, when the people surrender their power, or sit idly back and comply, then that concentration of power can do anything it wants... which is never in the best interests of the people. Things are funny that way.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” - Some dude

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin


I saw a film and at the end they had a National Geographic clip where some lions chased 2 water buffalo and a baby water buffalo. The lions overcome the baby as the adults run off. A short while later the adults show up... with the entire herd... who proceed to promptly f-up the lions as the calf escapes.

It's an excellent metaphor. Had the water buffalo (people) given up, the calf (a person) would have been dinner for the lions (state or concentrated power). But when the herd (the people) return and say "NO!", the lions are powerless to resist.

I'd post the clip here, but Facebook is filtered here in Viet Nam, and I'd posted the link on FB (don't remember where to find it again right now). Oh well. If you know my FB page, scroll down on my wall - it's there.

[IainB]

I'm perfectly capable of descending into a frothing mass of obscenity all by my lonesome~!

-Renegade (March 26, 2012, 09:36 PM)

Well, I don't blame you, and don't you dare apologise for it.
My response to it was different though.
Off-topic: (so in a spoiler)

Spoiler

My response: It sent my mind spinning over the ethical issues around the use of embryonic material from deliberately aborted human foetuses. This has kept me awake some nights.

It was not something that I knew about until a couple of weeks ago, after following up a news item about which Snopes had this to say:

Pepsi/Senomyx
In January 2012, Oklahoma state senator Ralph Shortey introduced a bill to the state legislature which proposed that: "No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients." To many people, this nature of this bill sounded bizarre and left them questioning why food producers would possibly be using aborted human fetuses as ingredients.

I was completely dumbfounded when I did some research about:

• HEK293 from Senomyx.
• Agilent Technologies' website $elling MVP Human Fetal Tissue Poly(A)+ RNA

HEK293 is bad enough: it is a specific and stable/reproducible cell line derived from an experiment (the Human Embryonic Kidney experiment number 293) using kidney cells of a foetus aborted in 1972. (I think that's a correct summary.)

But the Agilent thing seems incredible. It even says on their website:

"Check Certificate of Analysis for donor information"

The correct definition of "donor is "a person who gives or donates", but I don't think the foetuses in this case would have had any option, and they are not animals, so the medical use of the term does not apply either. It is therefore a euphemism, presumably used in an endeavour to mask or ameliorate the unpleasant truth of what has been done.
The Chinese habit of using/"farming" political prisoners as organ-donors-to-order seems rather tame by comparison. They kill them to schedule, after having previously taken a sample of their DNA to tissue-match with someone requiring an organ transplant. The Chinese have just declared that they will cease this practice in about 5 years, once they have a voluntary public donor scheme in place. (That's right, they don't already have one.) They would not have done this if there had not been a public and international outcry about it in the first place.
I don't think I've seen a public outcry about HEK293 or Agilent, yet those foetuses never got a chance at life, unlike the Chinese organ "donors", who were killed for their organs in maturity.

The amazing thing is that Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Campbell Soups (to name but a few from the Snopes and other articles) all use this "embryonic product" HEK293, though Coca-Cola, and Campbell Soups have ceased to do so after it being revealed publicly, and only Pepsi steadfastly continues. They all use this material to see how it reacts/responds to different food flavours, which apparently helps them to improve the taste of of the food products that they sell. MSG it is not.
The thing is, it is not essential to use HEK293, nor would it seem to be ethical. There apparently are synthetic alternatives. So why on earth use it in the first place?
AFter reading about this a couple of weeks ago and after doing some research and discussing it with my 10yo daughter Lily, I have rather reluctantly boycotted the food products from all 3 manufacturers. I like some of those products too - especially Pepsi. Lily suggested the boycott and refuses to eat anything that has foetal products associated with its manufacture. I am 100% with her on that.

But who has been able to ensure supply to Senomyx and Agilent Technologies with the necessary raw material - human embryonic body parts - for such a vital and (apparently) lucrative business to continue?
Hmm...
Well, if it is US abortion clinics or the PPA (Planned Parenthood Association), then presumably that's OK...Oh, but wait...

I am a registered Organ Donor (it's indicated on my New Zealand driving licence), so, if I am killed in a driving accident (and in NZ you must always have your driving licence with you whilst driving, by law), then your organs can be whipped off for transplant, nice and fresh. Mind you, that's probably not as fresh as those Chinese organ-donors-to-order mentioned above, where the ambulance is standing by at the execution and the intended recipient has been brought in to hospital to await the organ's arrival at the transplant theatre.

I am quite happy to be a registered organ donor, but, in NZ at least, it is on the implicit understanding that the donation is to be made after my death, and is not to be the cause of my premature death. You can probably understand that I'd be pretty miffed if the surgeons came to me to (say) extract my liver, whilst I was still using it.